IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24867 of 2012
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -84 Year- 2009 Thana -null District- MADHEPURA
1. Sadanand Yadav S/o Late Ram Lakhan Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur,
P.S.- Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani
2. Shibo Devi W/o Sambhu Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur, P.S.-
Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani
3. Sambhu Yadav S/o Sadanand Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur, P.S.-
Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani
4. Jamuna Devi W/o Sadanand Yadav Resident of Village- Kalikapur, P.S.-
Kaluwahi, District- Madhubani
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjana Devi, Wife of Late Shyam Yadav, Resident of Village Pathar Patti,
P.S. Kewati, District Darbhanga. At present Village Dahi Pet Dih (Sohrai) P.S.
Sakari, District Madhubani
…. …. Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar, APP
For O.P. No.2 : None
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 10-10-2017
The petitioners have filed this application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cognizance order dated 03.02.2012,
passed by learned CJM, Madhubani in Kaluwahi P.S. Case No.84 of
2009 (T.R. No.3365 of 2012) by which the learned CJM, Madhubani
has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 323, 341,
504, 420, 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts of the case, as levelled in the FIR, is that the
informant was married with the son of the petitioner no.1 a decade
back and four years prior to lodging of the case her husband died. It is
alleged that while her husband was alive, all accused used to torture
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24867 of 2012 dt.10-10-2017
2 /3
her in connection with further demand of dowry and after death of her
husband they have forcibly got the signature of the informant and
received the insurance amount given by the insurance company in her
favour as she was nominee in the insurance policy. It is also alleged
that she was ousted from matrimonial home keeping her all
jewelleries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner nos.1 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and other
petitioners are the brother of the informant’s husband and his wife. It
is submitted that in fact the informant developed illicit affair with
another man and the family members used to object, so she lodged
this false case, even during investigation the independent witnesses
have not supported the case and her children are still living with the
petitioners, so this case was filed maliciously. Contrary to that the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is
allegation of subjecting the informant to cruelty by the petitioners and
the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet.
4. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of
the records, the Court finds that it is not that the ingredients of the
offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed
in the allegation levelled in the FIR as there appears allegation of
cruelty alleged to be committed by the petitioners. As far as the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24867 of 2012 dt.10-10-2017
3 /3
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no
independent witnesses have supported the allegation during the
investigation, that may be raised at the time of framing of the charge
to show that there exists no sufficient ground for proceeding in the
matter.
5. There is no ground for interfering with the order
impugned. The quashing application accordingly, stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.10.2017
Transmission 11.10.2017
Date